Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the sources were that close and accurate, why do they continue? Me thinks this is BS
Continue what? Continue to serve in their positions or continue to talk to Woodward? Or continue to remain anonymous?
This is a confusing comment. But you would have to ask the people who are involved to get an answer to any of those questions. None of us know any more than you.
It may not be "new info" all the way through but the insight into who is part of the "good guys" will be helpful I think in assessing some of the comments as the Mueller investigation grows like Topsy...
And I already learned Rob Porter has more sense than what I gave him credit for when I was glad he was pushed out of the WH for his past history of abuse...
I listened to Omarossa's book and while I think she is an opportunist of the first magnitude, I did learn that Kelly is likely as much a racist as Trump which surprised me considering how far he rose in the military...
It's a sad fact that a smart guy can still be an abuser.
If not for that terrible flaw, there are a lot of guys like Porter who should have stayed in their jobs.
As a vet, I can say with confidence that being in the military doesn't change one's racist feelings. Since there is a big penalty for letting those feelings out, military personnel just keep their racism under wraps.
Kelly was a General. He had to keep his racist sentiments very quiet until he retired.
But in the military, it is not at all hard to tell who's a racist and who isn't.
I tend to believe Woodward more than some of the others, because he takes flack from both left and right. Remember it was Woodward who said that there was NO Bush/Cheney lie about WMD, angering many on the left. He also has said that he looked 2 years for Trump/Russia collusion and found NONE. By the same token if we believe Fear we probably should admit to what he says about WMD, and about collusion.
If the sources were that close and accurate, why do they continue? Me thinks this is BS
That is your right, to not believe it, but there can be a lot of valid reasons why people choose to stick it out, rather than throw in the towel. Maybe they love their jobs and feel they are making a difference. Maybe they feel they can do more to avert a disaster by being on the inside, rather than being an outsider. Maybe they sense that this fiasco of an administration has to peak at some point and something better might be on the horizon.
A lot of us stick out a job where we see things we feel need corrected, I know I have. Sometimes, new management comes in and fixes the issues, sometimes you can affect changes by just hanging in there and moving things in a better direction by example.
I sense that the people in the WH KNOW this administration is a train wreck, and getting more bizarre by the day. Some of them evidently feel they have to be the adults in the room, because, God knows, the man with the bad hair is NOT AN ADULT. My hat is off to the people trying to keep him on a short leash.
I am not entirely comfortable with the proliferation of anonymous sources. I have read Woodward, Ed Klein, Halperin/Heilmann, and Allen/Parnes, so I enjoy this genre. They all use anonymous sources (as do the NYT and WAPO).
Ed Klein in particular comes up with outrageous stuff that is supposedly straight from various inner circles. His last book had President Obama regularly smoking weed after leaving office. If we accept a Woodward, how can we justify turning around and rejecting an Ed Klein? They follow similar methodology.
In Shattered by Allen and Parnes (re the 2016 Hillary campaign) they say:
Quote:
We made one decision early on in our process that proved crucial in allowing us access to key players even at times when most of the media was walled off from Hillary and her senior staff. We agreed to conduct all of our interviews on background, which provided anonymity to our sources. That gave them an extra sense of security on the off chance that we broke a vow that we observed throughout our reporting: none of the material would appear before the election. . . . The trade-offs enabled us to get an extraordinary look at the last, tumultuous chapter of the Clinton era.
We are left having to trust the reporter, which really verges on a form of magical thinking.
I am not entirely comfortable with the proliferation of anonymous sources. I have read Woodward, Ed Klein, Halperin/Heilmann, and Allen/Parnes, so I enjoy this genre. They all use anonymous sources (as do the NYT and WAPO).
Ed Klein in particular comes up with outrageous stuff that is supposedly straight from various inner circles. His last book had President Obama regularly smoking weed after leaving office. If we accept a Woodward, how can we justify turning around and rejecting an Ed Klein? They follow similar methodology.
In Shattered by Allen and Parnes (re the 2016 Hillary campaign) they say:
We are left having to trust the reporter, which really verges on a form of magical thinking.
I see what you're saying here, and I wouldn't disagree. Most inside-story books should be read with at least a grain of salt.
But Woodward has a track record going back decades, and has been as hard on lefties as he has been on righties. I don't think it's humanly possible to do it better than he does.
759119
Published on Sep 16, 2018Bob Woodward, author of the best-selling book, "Fear: Trump in the White House," explains why he uses anonymous and confidential sources in his reporting and why the American public should be concerned about the chaos that surrounds President Donald Trump.
Then go to the polls this Fall and think about GOP apologists.
I see what you're saying here, and I wouldn't disagree. Most inside-story books should be read with at least a grain of salt.
But Woodward has a track record going back decades, and has been as hard on lefties as he has been on righties. I don't think it's humanly possible to do it better than he does.
I agree, and this is why I find it tough not to trust Woodward. On the other hand, they all have pretty extensive track records. Ed Klein was a Newsweek editor, and ed-in-chief of the NYT magazine. But if you've read any of his recent books, you know how outrageous some of the quotes are. I'd guess that only Trumpians and far-right folks would give him any credibility.
I see what you're saying here, and I wouldn't disagree. Most inside-story books should be read with at least a grain of salt.
But Woodward has a track record going back decades, and has been as hard on lefties as he has been on righties. I don't think it's humanly possible to do it better than he does.
You are right. Bob has an impeccable reputation as a truth based reporter. Everyone who has worked with him says he has copious notes on every conversation he has had, filing cabinets overflowing with those interviews, and dogged determination to ferret out the truth. He is right at the top of his profession.
I find it ironic that some of his cult are questioning Woodward's facts, and , all the while, they sit back and accept lie after lie, daily, from the man they think walks on water. A few lies, maybe, but 5,000 PROVABLE lies in 2 years verges on insanity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
